That seems to be the takeaway of today's strange take-down of bald guys in the NY Times. "Because of the blow to their self-esteem, some balding men simply settle when it comes to spouses." Wills and Kate, explained!

That's right: The article uses Prince William, of all people, as its primary example in making the case that a receding hairline will make a man rush to the altar. "Is it possible that the 28-year-old prince felt an urge to lock up a commitment from Ms. Middleton because his heart-throb status might be beginning to disappear with the hair?" the article asks. OMG, maybe so! But maybe Kate Middleton—and millions of other women—care about more than just her man's looks and hairdo. Maybe it's what's inside that counts. To be fair, it seems the article singles out the Prince because the British tabloids are making a fuss about his hair loss. But hey, maybe we shouldn't look to tabloids as indicators of what's going on with our world today. Sometimes tabloids are wrong (or so we hear!).

Besides making a bunch of generalizations about bald guys, the article gives a man-centric twist to a message often directed at women: that you better hurry up and settle down before you get too old, or else you just might never find a mate. For women, it's because there's always a younger woman to take our place. For men—even young men who are bald—there may never be a place at all. Way to be an equal-opportunity jerk, NYT.

The article does one other annoying thing: it suggests that bald men's problems might be due, at least in part, to the growing economic independence of women. The article quotes a sociologist who cites studies from the 1930s indicating that women cared less about looks than her man's money. Such money-grubbing skanks! But now, women are making their own moolah and can be pickier about looks. Such money-making skanks! Let's all go back to the 1930s, when men could be bald and loved, and middle-aged women knew they'd have someone to depend on. Everyone seemed so much happier then.